Facts

Parties:

  • [A.] (appellant), represented by attorney Dr. Walter Bischofberger,
  • [B.] , [C.] , [D.] , [E.] (respondents),
  • Municipality of [U.] , represented by attorney Frank Zellweger,
  • Department of the Interior and Economic Affairs of the Canton of Thurgau.

Facts:

  • [A.] acquired a property of 6,174 m2 in 2011, on which trees and shrubs are located along the eastern, northern, and western boundaries.
  • The property borders the properties of [B.] , [E.] , [C.] , and [D.] .
  • Since 2019, there have been several proceedings before the boundary commission of the municipality of [U.] regarding the conformity of the plants on [A.] 's property with boundary law.
  • By decision of January 29, 2021, the boundary commission ordered [A.] to prune the plants within two months, otherwise substitution would be threatened.
  • [A.] filed an appeal with the Department of the Interior and Economic Affairs of the Canton of Thurgau, which was dismissed.
  • [A.] then filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau, which was also dismissed.
  • [A.] finally filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the dismissal of the removal or pruning claims or the referral of the case back to the Administrative Court for a new assessment.

Considerations

The appeal is directed against the final decision of a last cantonal instance, which, as the supreme court, dismissed an appeal lodged against a decision issued under cantonal civil law (Art. 72 para. 1, Art. 75 para. 1 and Art. 90 FSCA). The value in dispute exceeds the statutory threshold (Art. 74 para. 1 lit. b FSCA). The appeal in civil matters is thus the appropriate remedy; the incorrect designation of her application does not harm the appellant. She is entitled to appeal pursuant to Art. 76 para. 1 FSCA and has complied with the appeal deadline (Art. 100 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 45 para. 1 FSCA). In this respect, the appeal can be admitted.

With the appeal in civil matters, violations of the law can be asserted pursuant to Art. 95 f. FSCA. The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA) and examines with free cognition whether the challenged decision violates the law. However, it only deals with formally sufficiently substantiated objections (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA; BGE 140 III 86 E. 2, 115 E. 2). To the extent that the appellant party asserts violations of constitutional rights, the strict principle of pleading applies (see Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA and BGE 140 III 264 E. 2.3; 141 I 36 E. 1.3). In this case, it must be clearly and in detail demonstrated, based on the reasoning of the challenged decision, to what extent constitutional rights may have been violated (BGE 135 III 232 E. 1.2).

Pursuant to Art. 688 CC, the cantons are, inter alia, authorized to prescribe certain distances from neighboring properties for plantings, depending on the type of property and the plants. The provision thus contains a genuine allocating reservation in favor of the cantons in the sense of Art. 5 CC. Based on this, they are empowered to determine the distances that owners must maintain for plantings and to provide for sanctions for violations of corresponding provisions (BGE 122 I 81 E. 2a with references; 126 III 452 E. 3a; judgments 5A_29/2015 of June 5, 2015 E. 3.3.1 with references; 5A_968/2019 of May 20, 2020 E. 3.1.3). If plantings do not comply with…